Saturday, March 9, 2013

The two things are the two filibusters, the live one by Rand Paul and the cloture defeat for a DC Circuit Court nominee.

Will Rand Paul's filibuster turn out to have mattered? Yes, if it sparks a cross-party coalition on civil liberties, or if it's the beginning of a more assertive Congress on national security. Or if it starts serious internal change in the GOP on some of these issues. Will it do so? I'm skeptical -- and a remarkably empty WaPo op-ed by Paul certainly doesn't make me think it's more likely -- but it's certainly not impossible.

On the other one: any single nomination battle matters some, especially for the DC Circuit Court, which is a big deal. So it matters to some extent. But it's too soon to tell what pattern, if any, it's a part of. Note that two more judicial nominations are scheduled to come to the floor under a unanimous consent agreement on Monday. It's possible we've reverted back to the Bush years, where the opposition party uses the filibuster selectively against those nominees they are particularly upset about, but will let the rest through. But it's also possible that not much has changed, and constant filibusters will spark (as Richard Durbin suggested this week) further reform. I don't know!

So that's what I have. What else is there? What do you think mattered this week?

35 comments:

I accidentally commented on my wifey's account (above). This is what I said:

The Rand talking filibuster mattered to me, at least. I know the GOP has some worthwhile ideas, and bringing the drone issue up shows that even the RWNJs can make a good point.

I've seen people saying that Rand Paul is a lightweight on the drone issue, but the fact that he used the filibuster the way that he did gives me hope that politicians will use it more appropriately in the future.

I can't remember what channel I was watching, but I heard a news reporter cover Paul's talking filibuster by saying, "For the first time, Republicans are mounting a filibuster against an Obama nominee--" ...I couldn't hear what was said after that, because I was too busy shouting obscenities at the TV.

As said by Matt Yglesiais about this weeks job numbers: "... in my opinion the story of the recovery continues to be the "rebalancing" of the American economy toward more people working in the private sector and fewer people working for the government. This months 236,000 new jobs turns out to have included 246,000 new private sector jobs and a loss of 10,000 public sector jobs. Most months the overall numbers have been worse than that, but the general pattern is the same. You hear about this some from liberals who wish the federal government were doing more to bolster state and local governments, but I wish we'd hear about it more from conservatives."

The GOP Invisible Primary mattered with Rand Paul positioning himself; Jeb Bush repositioning himself and then un repositioning himself; Rubio's continual positioning; Christie continuing to be popular, but alienated by the right wing.

All of these things will change, but the positioning seems to be happening with each trying to outflank and outnews cycle each other. And the field will probably take shape before long.

Also, President Obama attempting to circumvent the leadership won't matter at all, except as another failed attempt to convince the press that he's bipartisan.

Rand Paul’s talking filibuster was a rare successful push back against the post-9/11 security state. Rand demonstrated not only that it’s possible to rally civil libertarians across the political spectrum, but also to mobilize his own party machinery behind a libertarian cause that it would have otherwise avoided.

Whether this is the beginning of a grand tranpartisan libertarian alliance or a renaissance of libertarian influence on the right specifically… we’ll have to see. This is just supposition, but I do think that Rubio’s appearance may have at least been a nod to the growing influence of libertarian thought on the Right -- he couldn’t afford to let Rand monopolize this issue for the 2016 Republican Presidential primary.

Jonathan, after reading your article, I have to remind you that Rand also lead Senate opposition to the NDAA. This is nothing new from Rand - the only thing unique about his filibuster was its success.

Was it successful? I am glad it shined a light on Drone usage, but it seems like the WH response was "no" and Rand accepted that after needing an awful lot of help in his filibuster attempt. That seems like fairly passive interest in the use of drones.

Also Libertarians and Progressives are more aligned on this issue than the GOP and Libertarians (see McCain, John).

Holder told Rand what he wanted to hear. At least that seemed to be his intent. Some have suggested that Holder’s wording still somehow reserves the domestic drone option for future administrations…

But the issue here is not whether Holder is crossing his fingers behind his back -- it’s whether Holder is seen to have satisfied the concerns raised by Rand Paul. Holder says he did -- Rand accepted it. Does it matter that a few other people question this? Remember, there’s no actual legal precedent to Holder’s opinion. What matters is the political precedent it sets, which is why it’s important that the President himself speak loudly and clearly on this issue. A short, sarcastic letter from Holder is hardly the best possible response from an administration that came to power by promising to turn away from the dark days of Bush/Cheney.

Ultimately, what matters here is public opinion. Rand brought the issue to public attention in such a way that people from every corner of the political spectrum agreed with him. That makes the possibility of drone strikes within our borders unthinkable, at least in the near term. Short of a Supreme Court decision (which couldn’t be issued until after the fact anyway), I don’t think you can achieve a clearer victory than that.

And yes, I certainly agree that libertarians and progressives are closer than libertarian and Republicans. I also question whether much of the Republican machine really agrees with Rand, or if they’re just scoring points against Obama and trying to placate a public that is clearly siding with Rand. Of course part of the brilliance of Rand’s play was to use the natural inclinations of the Republican partisan machine to advance the cause of liberty… and his own Presidential prospects.

Call me crazy, but I don't think any unprovoked domestic assassination campaign was really in the offing, be it with drones or sharpshooters. And if Holder's statement that the president doesn't have the authority to off citizens within the country's borders sets some new legal precedent, then something is indeed amiss. On the other hand, they're not going to make a blanket statement that the government can never kill anyone (if only to forestall a half-million law suits over the Civil War). The enforcement of police powers will result in deaths on occasion. It's alwasys regretable, but that's not really news either.

Holder's first response: "It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001."

Holder's second response: “It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no.”

There is no difference. The people who attacked us on 9/11 and at Pearl Harbor were obviously engaged in combat on American soil.

But was Anwar al-Aulaqi "obviously engaged in combat"? The administration says he was. So if an enemy combatant/citizen can be killed while overseas, even though he's hundreds of miles from any battle front we're engaged in, the implication of Holder's reasoning is that the same could be done to a citizen on US soil. You're right, Holder's reasoning hasn't changed, but he's at least stepped back from one of the more controversial conclusions that it leads us to.

Holder's problem here is that it's difficult to come up with a coherent justification for killing al-Aulaqi but not an enemy combatant on US soil.

BTW, I should have put quotes around the term "enemy combatant" -- my point (and Rand's) being that people our government accuses of being "engaging in combat" includes those who aren't engaged in combat at all.

2. There's a press story here: it's not the first time these issues have been raised, but for whatever reason this one got their attention.

3. As I said, I'm somewhat skeptical of Rand Paul and his ability to make anything out of this.

4. I'm also pretty skeptical that anything can get people to care about civil liberties.

5. And on a completely different track, I'm annoyed by romantic notions of talking filibusters *when it comes to reform*. I'm all for this kind (this one, Sanders a couple of years ago, Al D'Amato before that). But to the extent it gets people thinking that it's a solution to Senate dysfunction, it's not helpful to that.

BTW: "Holder's problem here is that it's difficult to come up with a coherent justification for killing al-Aulaqi but not an 'enemy combatant' on US soil."

Sure there is: if we're talking about someone actively plotting and organizing attacks against the US government/people, but not actually firing a gun (or hijacking a plane, or whatever) right now, then as a practical matter there are going to be lots and lots of situations abroad where arrest is impossible but a drone kill is possible, vs. almost no situations like that within the US.

When you say that, as a practical matter, there are "almost no situations like that within the US," you also seem to be admitting to the principle that such a situation could actually occur. This is precisely the prospect that Rand was asking about... Thankfully, Holder said that it couldn't happen (assuming, of course, that Holder answered the question that was actually being asked).

And call me a little bit cynical here, but in the context of the modern security state, that rare, almost unthinkable event, could easily become routine through either a change in circumstances or a change in the political definition of what constitutes inaccessibility. It's important to settle the principle before any of this becomes a practical reality.

What matters the most is the political consensus in favor of civil liberties (vs. unconstitutional drone strikes), which I think Rand's actions demonstrated (I really disagree with #3 and 4 -- even one of McCain's aid's admitted that the people were against him!). If the President ever considered using drones domestically, he would be constrained by the knowledge that he would now be widely pilloried for it (and maybe even impeached). It's the new political reality created this past week that makes it one of the most significant checks on the imperial presidency that we've seen since 9/11. And we have Rand Paul to thank for it.

Rubio's further shifting to the right, and aligning himself with the new Joe McCarthy. (Ted Cruz.) Rubio indicated that he was willing to put the breaks on any continuing resolution in an attempt to remove funding for Obamacare. Now that several prominent Republican governors have signed on, this will be an interesting development going forward. Did you notice how much coverage this got? Let's see if it comes up today on the Sunday gobshite festivals.

Levin retiring. That takes a safe Democratic seat and gives the Republicans a chance of taking it. Who knows, that could decide Senate control in 2015, which will be very important for Obama's second term.

Could also be an interesting test case to see how the Rove/rape factionalism plays in GOP primaries. An open seat in a bluish-purple state would be an obvious place for the GOP to prioritize mainstream appeal over intense conservatism.

The events unfolding in Caracas are important, though probably not for the US. Maduro assuming the presidency and launching his candidacy for the April elections (in clear violation of the constitution) and the opposition's decision not to boycott probably won't affect electoral outcomes, but they could certainly have medium term political implications, particularly if the coming fiscal crisis is a severe one.